and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda - codesria

Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006 pp. 1–26
© Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 2006
(ISSN 0850-3907)
The Land Act (1998) and
Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
Juma Anthony Okuku*
Abstract
In agrarian societies land is not only the main means for generating a livelihood,
it is also a means to accumulate wealth and transfer it between generations. In
Uganda, it is a basic source of food, employment, a key agricultural input and a
major determinant of a farmer’s access to other productive resources. The nature
of land tenure, therefore, has profound implications for the development
process of nations. As the historical experience of Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa indicates, land tenure can either impede or facilitate positive socioeconomic
change in a given economy. The Land Act (1998), which aims at
reforming land tenure relations in Uganda, is therefore one of the most farreaching
legislation enacted by the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government.
The new tenure system aims at supporting agricultural development
through the functioning of a land market, establishing security of tenure and
ensuring sustainable utilisation of land in order to bring about development.
This paper discusses three major issues. First, the extent to which the new Land
Act (1998) ensures security of tenure to the peasant majority in the country.
Second, the issue of its capacity to resolve the long-run contestation between
the mailo landowners and tenants (bibanja) holders. And third, the ambiguities
and difficulties facing the Act in the process of its implementation must be confronted.
The article is based on the textual analysis of the various land laws in
Uganda historically. The literature brings out several constraints and ambiguities
regarding the land reform process in Uganda.
* Juma Anthony Okuku is a Lecturer in Political Economy, Department of Political
Science, Makerere University, Kampala and a PhD candidate at The Graduate
School of Public and Development Management, University of The
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. E-mail: jumaoku@yahoo.co.uk and
okuku.aj@mgmt.wits.ac.za. I thank the anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.
The usual disclaimer applies.
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 1
27/04/2006, 17:59

2 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
Résumé
Dans les sociétés agraires, la terre ne représente pas uniquement le principal moyen
de génération de revenus, mais également un outil d’accumulation et de transfert
de richesses entre les différentes générations. En Ouganda, elle constitue une
source majeure de ressources alimentaires, d’emploi ; elle représente un important
outil agricole ainsi qu’un important déterminant de l’accès des paysans aux
autres ressources productives. La nature de la terre a de ce fait d’énormes implications
sur le processus de développement des nations. Comme le démontre
l’expérience historique de l’Europe, de l’Asie, de l’Amérique Latine et de
l’Afrique, le régime foncier peut soit freiner soit faciliter un changement
socioéconomique dans une société donnée. La Land Act (1998) – loi relative au
régime foncier dont l’objectif est de réformer le système foncier en Ouganda,
constitue donc une des législations les plus complètes promulguées par le
Gouvernement du Mouvement de Résistance Nationale (NRM). Ce nouveau
système vise à apporter un certain soutien au développement agricole à travers
l’instauration d’un marché foncier, qui assurerait ainsi une certaine sécurité foncière
ainsi qu’une utilisation viable de la terre, afin de faciliter le processus de
développement. Cet article aborde trois points majeurs. Tout d’abord il explique
dans quelle mesure la nouvelle Land Act (1998) peut garantir la sécurité foncière
à une majorité de paysans de ce pays. Il aborde également la question de la capacité
de cette loi à résoudre le long conflit entre les propriétaires terriens mailo et les
fermiers à bail bibanja. Troisièmement, cet article affirme que les ambiguïtés et
les difficultés auxquelles cette loi est confrontée doivent être prises en compte.
Cet article est basé sur une analyse textuelle des différentes législations foncières
de l’histoire de l’Ouganda. La littérature exploitée révèle un certain nombre de
contraintes et d’ambiguïtés concernant le processus de réforme foncière de ce
pays.
Introduction
There is a broad agreement among economic historians that the ‘agricultural
revolutions’ coincided or even preceded the industrial revolution in European
countries. The transfer of land to individual owners as a result of the
enclosure movement in England led to the mechanisation of agriculture, resulting
in increased production. Virtually all successful land reforms in the
20th century involved transfer or consolidation of land to tenants and peasants
who thus became owner-cultivators (Skarstein 1990:2-5). Through a
distributive land reform in East Asia the process was applied with striking
success in areas of extreme land hunger as in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea,
their specific historical contexts notwithstanding. Small farms in these
countries proved that they are unbeatable in ensuring self-sufficiency combined
with food for all. This was complemented by a massive transfer of
resources for rural development. It is usually argued that such reforms are
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 2
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
favourable to efficiency and employment as well as equity. In the short-run,
the size of the marketed surplus would also be favoured.
Through the land reform of 1946, for instance, Japanese farmers received
a new incentive to intensify their productive efforts when they became owners
of the land. Farmers received a new motivation to make better use of
science and technology through improved education, agricultural research,
and extension combined with re-organisation of co-operatives. In both South
Korea and Taiwan, absentee land ownership was abolished and the land was
placed in the hands of cultivators.
Uganda’s economy being predominantly agricultural-based with over 80
percent of its people deriving their livelihood directly from land, tenure security
that provides for legalised exploitation of this resource is a critical
need. This is because secure property rights have a positive impact on increased
agricultural production and implications for food security. In terms
of the land question, several processes related to the economic crisis and
Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) have led to changes in demand,
use and value of land in the country. The nature of access, the rights to land,
including the right to sell, have changed and become complex. This has been
facilitated, partially, by the deepening poverty occasioned by some of the
SAPs. An act to reform land is therefore timely. One of the major milestones
to reform land tenure in Uganda has been the 1998 Land Act.
The Land Act of 1998, which provides for a land tenure reform, has farreaching
implications for agricultural development. It aims at supporting
agricultural development through the functioning of a land market, establishing
security of tenure, and ensuring the sustainable utilisation of land to
bring about development. Sustainability of land reform calls for the creation
of conditions for efficient use and development of land markets meeting the
requirement of society and individual citizens. This entails the development
of administration of the cadastre, land appraisal for taxation purposes, control
over use of land, land use planning and monitoring functions.
The land question is immersed in the political economy of Uganda. The
exercise of power and power relations impinges on the operations of land
markets, on security in land rights, and on security in land tenure. There are
a number of problems associated with exercise of power in Uganda today.
First, of particular concern, is the prevalence of patronage politics in Uganda
where every development programme is viewed in terms of expanding the
regime’s political base. Hence, a programme of tenure reform is viewed as
an opportunity more for the expansion of the political base of the regime
than for ensuring tenure security. Public land is likely to be used as a patronage
resource for the state to acquire more power. Second, the land reform
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 3
27/04/2006, 17:59
3

4 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
process is hardly linked to other programmes such as the Plan for Modernisation
of Agriculture (PMA), which is part of Uganda’s broader strategy to
eradicate poverty under the guidelines of the Poverty Eradication Action
Plan (PEAP) adopted by Government in 1997. 1 Third, is the problem of
sustainability of the reform process and institutions.
This paper critically examines the efficacy of the Land Act of 1998, aimed
at bringing about land tenure reform in the context of Uganda’s political
economy. The paper is divided into five parts. Part one is the introduction.
Part two briefly outlines the conceptual framework. Part three locates the
study in historical perspective. Part four is the central part of the paper, which
examines both theoretically and empirically, the provisions of the Act on the
land holding system, control of land use and land management. This is done
together with an analysis of chapter 15 of the Uganda Constitution (1995)
that deals with land and environment. All these are analysed within the context
of the mission of the Act to create a land market, establish security of
tenure, and ensure the sustainable utilisation of land resources. Part five is
an assessment of the prospects of the Act in bringing about development in
Uganda within the institutional and political context of the Land Act debate
and the ambiguities embedded in the Act.
Conceptual framework
The current dominant approach to analysis of land tenure relations is
neoliberalism. This approach has been adopted by advocates of the market
approach to land reform called ‘negotiated’ or ‘market-assisted’ land reform.
Debates on land tenure security have been focused on what forms of tenure
institutions could provide more security, individualised tenure or indigenous
tenure, and in what forms land can be managed, by the state, local community
or individuals (Bromley and Cornea 1989). What has been little discussed,
however, are the contents of security and social character which security
of land rights carry. Izumi (1998b:12-13), attempts a clarification of
the issues by segregating the contents of security and the social character of
security of land rights as opposed to security in land tenure.
According to this view, security in land rights is attached to certain individuals
or groups. Security in land rights is often relational with respect to
contradicting relations over land between different social groups: villagers
and outsiders, peasants and the state, pastoralists and private investors, where
unequal access to land between the two exists. In many cases, a loss of access to
land of the former is often a condition for the latter to accumulate land.
Security in land tenure, on the other hand, implies stability in the institutions
of land tenure, which contains rules, norms and enforcement mechanisms
of the rules. Legitimacy and stability in tenure institutions is necessary
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 4
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
if individuals are to believe that existing institutions protect his/her rights in
land. It is not the legislation of rules but their institutionalisation that provides
a source of security in land rights. However, security in land tenure
does not imply that everybody has secure land rights protected by the institution.
This is because institutions are not neutral, but often reflect power relations
in a given society.
Tenure security and security of land rights must be seen in a given social
and institutional context. It is not that just that secure property rights in land
have a positive impact on increased agricultural productivity as they provide
incentives to invest. This depends on whose interests these institutions serve.
Brenner (1982), drawing on the experience of European development, argues
that institutions create vested interests that make change problematic,
even in the presence of major technological advances.
The major concern with the current donor-driven conceptualisation regarding
the lack of agricultural development in Africa is the absence of a
land market. In the literature on African tenure, the land market is discussed
as synonymous with land sales and the absence of a land market is blamed as
a cause of the inefficient allocation of land (Izumi 1998a:33). The Land Act
of 1998 is informed by this conception. This view regarding land markets
raises two questions. First, whether existing land sales in Africa, which are
considered ‘informal land markets’, constitute a land market. Second, whether
formalisation of the ‘informal land market’ will ensure a more just allocation
and distribution of land.
To conceptualise the land market adequately, one needs to distinguish
between isolated, personalised, non-market exchange and impersonal market
exchange. A market itself is an institution which depends on other institutions
such as customary, legal, political and other social arrangements, which
control market systems, and in the absence of such institutions, a market
economy does not automatically emerge (Hodgson 1988).
Therefore, the current neoliberal individualisation of tenure and the notion
of land markets are not adequate in societies in the process of transition
such as those of Africa. There are both market and non-market forces that
influence the process. The non-market institutions, particularly the state, are
indispensable for the establishment of and the proper working of the market.
The state is largely left out of the neoliberal construction of land markets.
The institutionalisation of the land market requires the state to be highly
efficient in its intervention in regulating and facilitating the development of
the land market, and in administration, including property rights legislation,
registration and collection of land tax (Izumi 1998a:34).
The debate on the relationship between land tenure and development continues.
What is agreed, however, is that there is a need for land reform for
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 5
27/04/2006, 17:59
5

6 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
sustainable agricultural development to take place. The central element in
the relationship between land tenure and development is the concrete definition
of property rights, which are crucial for investment in, and development
of, agriculture. Land reform, therefore, connotes reform of basic relations
among tillers of the land and of basic relations between them and the direct
beneficiaries from the land-tiller interaction (Lipton 1991:270).
Policy-makers seeking to avoid land reform may find it politically convenient
to insert provisions that make land reform impossibly difficult; for
example, by adding extraneous requirements regarding land confiscation.
The fear of land reform should not at the same time allow for an over-liberal
definition that may allow some pseudo-reforms to acquire kudos for real
reform. Land reform may fail to achieve its stated goals because it does not
attack the rural power structure, which may be rooted in the unequal distribution
of owned land.
Second, land markets may not necessarily be activated as a result of registration
or titling. The mere fact that land sales take place does not mean
that they promote economic efficiency by transferring land into the hands of
dynamic cultivators. Land markets, as is the case with other types of markets,
are social organisms interacting with and perverted by the state and
society at large, and are political entities permeated by power relations of a
diverse kind (White 1993). Successful negotiation and contestation in the
market depends on access to power. It is therefore necessary to understand
what is power, what makes power, how power is acquired, and how to exercise
power in agrarian societies. Any reform of the land tenure system must
take into consideration both the market and non-market configurations (Izumi
1998a:50).
Third, reform of land tenure must go beyond titling and distribution of
land. There must be an agrarian reform – that is, reform of production and
social relations. It must involve the provision of technology, the extension of
farm management education and research, the provision of credit and the reorganisation
of co-operatives, to enable farmers to participate effectively in
the increasingly hostile market based on individualised entry advocated by
the neoliberals.
Finally, there is a theoretical case for a land ceiling and a land tax. An
effective distributive land reform must include a land ceiling beyond which
an individual may not own land. It is an essential point in ensuring a more
equal ownership of land leading to a fair income distribution. Land taxation,
with progressively higher rates as land value and size of ownership holding
increase, will, it has been argued, provide large landowners with the incentive
to sell parts of their land in order to escape the higher tax rates, (Mijumbi
2000:10). Apart from renting out and selling parts of land, it may encourage
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 6
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
landowners to invest in the land to produce more so as to raise the funds for
payment of tax. When well managed, tax resources may become a source of
funds to lend to farmers to make improvements in the land and for the development
of rural infrastructure. Most of these theoretical issues are largely
passed over in the Land Act 1998.
The land question in Uganda encompasses profound historical and political
issues that go beyond the framework of neoliberal theory. Both forms,
the market and non-market land transactions, co-exist. The minimal state
intervention suggested by neoliberal theory is unlikely to ensure the emergence
of a land market and its efficient functioning. A review of the history
of land legislation in Uganda indicates that socio-political issues have not
been given sufficient consideration in the enactment of laws. Economic issues,
although important, are not sufficient on their own.
Land legislation in Uganda: Historical perspectives
To understand the current efforts to reform land tenure in Uganda, one must
look at the historical context. Most of the intricacies involving the land tenure
reform were created by past land policies, both colonial and postcolonial.
The effectiveness or failure of land legislation can only be assessed within
its past political, economic and social context. This is because the underlying
mission of past legislation, as for the Act today, was the creation of markets,
the establishment of security of tenure and to ensure the sustainable
utilisation of land (Mamdani 1976; Mukubwa-Tumwine 1977; Bazaara et al.
1992; Trout 1994).
The colonial government chose to introduce individual rights in land in
the form of freehold tenure starting in Buganda. The colonial state intervention
produced conditions and legal mechanisms for the emergence of land
markets. Sir Harry Johnstone, the author of the 1900 Agreement between the
British and Baganda, believed that he was simply formalising and preserving
traditional rights and privileges in land, but the rights under the agreement
represented a fundamental shift from the traditional system (Mukwaya
1953 and West 1972). Under the terms of the1900 Agreement, of the total of
19,700 square miles of the land of Buganda, more than 8000 square miles,
the mailo, were allocated to the king and private individuals mainly chiefs,
notables, the church and the colonial state (crown land). Outside Buganda,
the colonial state assumed control over unappropriated land by declaring it
crown lands.
The outcome of the two approaches to land legislation was twofold. In
Buganda, the colonial policy consolidated the political and economic power
of the chiefs and mailo 2 landowners while at the same time rendering the
Bakopi (the peasants/the poor), and tenants dependent on the landlords. Out-
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 7
27/04/2006, 17:59
7

8 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
side Buganda, a new elite, particularly collaborators, with colonial backing
acquired land and power that they had never possessed before. The general
population in the meantime lost access to the so-called ‘unappropriated lands’
(Bazaara, et al 1992:8). At the same time, as a punishment to Bunyoro Kingdom
for having resisted colonialism, the colonial state settled the Baganda,
mostly as absentee landlords, in Kibaale, which came to be known as the
‘lost counties’. 3 These arrangements had serious political implications in the
post-independence period.
Our major concern here, however, is with the implications of this legislation
for land ownership and transfer. First, land became a saleable commodity
at the complete disposal of individuals, who had legal obligation neither
to the Kabaka nor to the people settled on their land. Second, within a few
years land became an important commodity for investment and the generation
of continuous wealth through the exploitation of hired labour with the
rise of employers and employees among the indigenous population. Third,
and perhaps most far-reaching, the 1900 Agreement excluded the rest of the
population from enjoying similar rights in land as the chiefs and other mailo
owners. Not only were they deprived of the rights of ownership ab initio but
also their right of occupancy (Mafeje 1973:6-7). Politically, this set the stage
for the Bataaka movement 4 in the 1920s, which was due to the dissatisfaction
with the 1900 Agreement.
The mailo estates, however, did not remain intact, but were broken up
over time, as the land market emerged. The original large mailo estates were
split into smaller lots, and the number of owners increased. Inheritance and
gifts were responsible for this trend, but the land market played a role.
Mukwaya (1953:34) described sale as a primary factor responsible for the
increase in the number of landowners. In his sample from two central region
Sub-counties, 57.8 percent of landowners had purchased their land. As a
result of divisions through inheritance, gift, and sale, there may have been as
many as 200,000 owners of mailo land by 1974 (Trout 1994:20).
There were three pieces of legislation in the colonial period. First, in
1903, the Crown Lands Ordinance as a forerunner of public land policies
was enacted to provide for the manner in which Crown Land holding emerged.
This included freehold and leasehold. Second, in 1908 a Land Law was passed
by the Buganda parliament, Lukiiko, defining the system of tenure introduced
by the 1900 Agreement. It also saw the implementation of rent requirements
by tenants and peasants, busulu and envujjo. The tenants and
peasants had to pay dues every year, busulu and a tithe, envujjo in respect of
each acre. The 1920s saw agitation by the Bataaka who were dissatisfied
with the Agreement, which had not specified the precise rights peasants had.
At the same time, there were increased demands by landlords for cash and
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 8
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
commodity rents as peasants expanded the cultivation of cash crops. The
implication of this extortion was that it acted as a fetter on production as
high rents, envujjo and busulu were imposed on the tenants and peasants.
Third, the colonial state responded by enacting the 1928 envujjo and busulu
laws that put a limit to the amount of rent that a landlord could levy while
guaranteeing the tenant complete and hereditary security of tenure so long as
he continued the effective cultivation of his land. The state through these
laws achieved three goals. First, the material basis of power of the landlords
and chiefs was severely limited. Second, it gave the peasants security of
tenure provided they cultivated cash crops for export. As a result, the tenant
found himself in a more secure position than before 1928 (Mamdani
1976:124). In law, the security of the mukopi (peasant/tenant/poor), was protected
against arbitrary eviction. The chief could no longer plunder the peasant’s
possessions and a law, which fixed the landlord’s share of economic
crops at a much smaller amount than which he had previously demanded,
defined his obligations. However, as Mukubwa (1977:59), observes, ‘it should
not be forgotten that the exploitation of the peasant was not ended, it was
only checked or mitigated’. The third goal achieved by the colonial state was
that the protection from eviction led to an increase in the production of cash
crops in demand by British industries in the 1930s.
No major land legislation was enacted until the 1950s. In a report to the
colonial Secretary of State for Colonies in 1951 by then Governor of Kenya,
Phillip Mitchell, it was argued that small-scale cultivation of land under tribal
conditions of tenure and according to African methods could do more than
sustain subsistence. The East African Royal Commission (EARC), was set
up. The Commission made three major recommendations, namely, there
should be, first, a progressive encouragement of individualisation of the title
in the African hands. Second, there should be a corresponding reduction of
communal and other restrictive controls over African lands. Third, a land
policy that would ensure mobility in the transfer of land in order to enable
access to land for economic use was recommended. According to Kiapi,
(1975), the government proposals based on the Commission’s recommendations
were rejected in some districts. In Teso and Lango riots ensued.The
Commission’s recommendations remained largely unimplemented.
In the 1960s and 1970s, there were several pieces of land legislations.
Here I consider those that were pertinent to the issue of security of tenure
and land acquisition. Following the recommendations of the1961 Constitutional
Conference, Lancaster House, London, the Public Land Act of 1962
was enacted. This was an attempt to establish a clear land policy before independence.
The Act converted all former Crown land into public lands, subject
to customary tenure, without specifying the limit to which a person could
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 9
27/04/2006, 17:59
9

10 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
acquire this land. The Land Acquisition Act of 1965 provided that the Minister,
whenever he was satisfied that the land was needed for public purposes,
could by statutory instruments make a declaration to that effect. Non-Africans
were not allowed to occupy or enter into possession of land or make
any contract to purchase or lease any land without the consent of the Minister,
by the Land Transfer Act of 1965.
The question which none of these Acts raised was; who was going to be
the subject of rural transformation in Uganda? A partial answer was given
during the 1966 crisis when the oligarchic superstructure of Buganda was
forcibly dismantled by the the government of Milton Obote, Uganda’s first
postcolonial Prime Minister. The government, however, had no clear plan
for land reform. The most it did in Buganda was to abolish official mailo
land, which by then amounted to no more than 4 percent of the land, and the
transfer of all public land to the national government (Mafeje 1973:22). Put
in a political context, the first Obote regime was unable to deal effectively
with the oligarchy due to its lack of political organisation at the grassroots
level. The regime was, as a result, confined to administrative manoeuvres
and was extremely fearful of rebellion in Buganda in the event of the government
seriously tackling the sensitive land question.
The other two important land laws in the post-independence period were
the 1969 Public Land Act and the 1975 Land Reform Decree. In 1969, all
public land was brought under the Uganda Land Commission. It was made
lawful for persons holding land by customary tenure to occupy without grant,
lease or license from the controlling authority of any public land vested in
the Commission. Sub-section 24 of the 1969 Public Land Act required the
consent of customary tenants before such land could be surrendered for any
other purposes. This was a vital protection for the majority who held land
under this tenure.
The 1975 Land Reform Decree reversed whatever security the peasants
had acquired by the 1969 Public Lands Act by declaring all land in Uganda
to be public. The Decree had a number of declared aims. First, it aimed to
end and prevent ‘unreasonable’ areas of land being left undeveloped by their
owners or occupiers, especially individuals without justification for doing
so. Second, the decree aimed at distributing land use to as many people as
possible, especially where there was great demand by those who needed
land for ‘development’ projects. Third, the decree sought to provide security
to land occupiers or users but to subject them to the general interest and
needs of the public. The Decree abolished mailo, freehold or any other absolute
ownership rights. Absolute titles were converted into leasehold under
the Uganda Land Commission – 99 years for individuals, and 999 years for
public bodies, religious and other charitable organisations. The busulu and
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 10
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
envujjo tenants were turned into customary holders without the condition of
rent payment. They were, however, prohibited from transferring any title in
land other than the improvements and developments on the land and provided
for eviction after a three months notice. It abolished the power of customary
tenants to stand in the way of development by refusing grants to lease
to those most able to develop the land (Bazaara, et al 1992:15).
What were the implications of the 1975 Decree? The first major implication
is that the Decree opened the floodgates for speculators and land grabbers.
State bureaucrats and state agents, particularly army officers, used state
power to grab land. This was because in the inflationary economy of the
1970s, the durability and ability of land to maintain real value made it a
desirable asset for preserving wealth (Juma 2000:18). Second, although the
decree abolished rents, it did not diminish the power of the land-owning
class, which could, on the pretext of ‘developing’ the land, dispossess the
tenants (Bazaara 2000:6). Third, there was no security of tenure as land could
be expropriated from the peasants in the name of ‘development’ projects or
the ‘public’ interest. In general, however, the decree had a limited impact as
the average citizen remained unaware of it and it remained largely
unimplemented.
The fundamental issues emerging from the various land enactments are
those of security of tenure and the definition of property rights, which determine
the range of possible transactions concerning land. They generally failed
to define the central subject of rural transformation. This is where the Land
Act 1998, appears to be so different. But due to some ambiguities embedded
in it, it may not be able to resolve some of the contentious issues surrounding
the land question in Uganda.
Land Reform and Policy in Uganda
By the late 1980s, there was no systematic land policy in Uganda. The
initial formulation of such policy was in 1983. According to the former Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development,
Tumusime-Mutebile, the history of the Land Bills dates back to this year. He
states:
Recognizing the importance of agricultural policy in the rehabilitation
and development of agricultural sector, and in agreement with the World
Bank under IDA – Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, government established,
in 1983, an Agricultural Policy Committee supported by the
Agricultural Secretariat to formulate, co-ordinate, direct and review key
policies and programmes in the agricultural sector (Bazaara 2000:9).
The calls for the market-based land reforms followed from a renewed focus
by donors and government to enact enabling policies for agricultural devel-
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 11
27/04/2006, 17:59
11

12 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
opment. Land in this case had to be transformed into a tradable commodity.
The government of the day could not formulate a land policy due to the civil
war of 1981-86. This was left to the NRM regime, which captured power in
1986. The NRM abandoned its Ten Point programme, a policy aimed at
building an ‘independent, integrated and self-sustaining economy’, and embraced
neoliberal policies in 1987. The policy of market-based land reform
had therefore come full circle.
This embrace by government of market-based land reform was reinforced
theoretically by the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR)-Wisconsin
Land Tenure Centre Study, ‘The Land Tenure and Agricultural Development
in Uganda’, with its obsession with creating land markets (MISR-
Winscosin Study 1989). The major problem with this Study is that it was
based on interviews of a small sample of farmers in Masaka and Luwero
districts, all located in South-Central Uganda, yet it came out with recommendations
for a uniform tenure system for the whole country. Therefore,
the specific problems in different parts of the country were not taken into
account (Ddungu 1991). A study with such a narrow focus should not have
been a basis for the national institutional framework of land policy. While
this shortcoming has been taken care of by the various studies for the implementation
of the Land Act in the various districts, the starting point should
have been the national dimensions of the land question.
Finally, politically the land question, especially in Buganda, came to be
subject to the power games of the NRM regime. Political interests of the
NRM acted as shackles on the process of enacting a law that would facilitate
the carrying out of a thorough land reform. In the run-up to the constituency
Assembly (CA) elections in 1994, there was a politically motivated, hurried
restoration of traditional rulers’ properties, including land and regalia, particularly
that of Buganda in 1993. This precluded any major tenure reforms
in Buganda, the centre of landlord – tenant relations.
The resulting Land Act of 1998, therefore, is theoretically informed by
the modernisation paradigm with an IMF/World Bank inspiration, and politically
by the power plays of the NRM regime. It encourages and supports
investment through making land, in both rural and urban areas, more readily
available to the market. It is within this context that the idea of a new land
policy was conceived.
The central aim of the Land Act, however, is to reform land tenure relations
in Uganda. The fundamental question is, are the prospects of the Land
Act 1998, of bringing about agricultural transformation, qualitatively different
from earlier initiatives? Uganda has four major tenure types that the legislation
aims to reform. The Act recognises these four land tenure
forms:Customary (communal), mailo, freehold and leasehold. Thus:
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 12
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
Section 3 (1) of the Act and article 237(1) of the 1995 Constitution state
that, ‘All land in Uganda shall vest in the citizens of Uganda and shall be
owned in accordance with the following land tenure systems: a) customary,
b) freehold, c) mailo and d) leasehold’. Section 3 (2) states that, ‘The freehold
and mailo tenures and estates which were abolished under the 1975
Land Reform Decree, are hereby restored’.
These provisions have different implications for the development process.
There are a number of underlying assumptions by those who relate these
systems of land tenure to development in general and Uganda in particular.
Customary tenure
First, under communal or customary tenure, a community or group bases the
fundamental principle of land ownership on collective ownership. They enjoy
usufructory right in land and it is transferred through inheritance. Both
the Constitution and the Land Act recognise customary tenure and aim at
defining ownership rights:
‘... All Ugandan citizens owning land under customary tenure may acquire
certificates of ownership’ (Article 237(4)(a) and Section 4(1) of the
Ac., ‘Any person or community holding land under customary tenure
may acquire a certificate of customary ownership...’ Section 5 (1), reads:
‘Any person or community holding land under customary tenure may
convert the customary tenure into freehold’.
The ultimate aim is to transform customary tenure into individually-owned
estates, held increasingly in the European-derived regimes of land markets
and private tenure, freehold or leasehold. The underlying assumption of the
Land Act is in line with an earlier argument in 1981 by Makubuya that customary
tenure is one of the basic hindrances to socio-economic development
in Uganda (Makubuya 1981).
There are a number of market-based arguments advanced against customary
tenure that ignore its socio-political underpinnings. First, there is the
view that there is insecurity of tenure because land is collectively owned and
it is difficult to use it as collateral. Second, is the argument that where land is
collectively owned, there is a tendency to misuse the land resources via irrational
husbandry techniques such as shifting cultivation/grazing, which are
an inefficient, and uneconomic way of land use. Third, the inheritance practices
lead to fragmentation and therefore, the rise of uneconomic pieces of
land (Bazaara 1992:4). Hence, for development to take place, in this view,
customary tenure must be abolished.
While these criticisms may have some validity, over time there has been an
evolution of tenure in Uganda such that to continue referring to existing
system of land tenure in some parts of the country as ‘customary’ is not
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 13
27/04/2006, 17:59
13

14 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
accurate. First, customary land tenure is ever being contested and reconstructed.
The nature of access, the right to land including rights to sale in
present-day Uganda, are a far cry from this static notion of customary tenure.
It has been undergoing individualisation and change. As Deininger and Feder
(1998:5) state in a general observation:
... Contrary to the widespread misconceptions, communal tenure systems
are generally not based on collective production. Instead production on
arable plots is normally undertaken by individuals who are residual claimants
to output implying that, on arable plots, incentives for effort supply
by individual cultivators are likely to be appropriate.
At a more empirical level, the Land Act does not resolve the complications
involved in common property. Under customary tenure it is difficult to delineate
communal areas such as clan land and hunting grounds. Neither does it
put in place the means of protection of individual interests from communal
rights. The provision for acquiring a certificate of customary ownership further
creates ambiguities. It is difficult to ascertain the status of a certificate of
customary ownership, particularly its value compared to other certificates of
title. There also arises a problem of differentiating these certificates from
title deeds. As a result, it becomes difficult to ascertain rights. The need to
ascertain rights is important because a certificate of ownership is a first step
to the acquisition of title deeds, which can be used as collateral for loans.
Finally, some problems arise regarding the conversion of customary tenure
into freehold. While conversion of customary tenure to freehold as enshrined
in the Act might provide more security of tenure, those who occupy
land under customary tenure are mostly illiterate. The conversion procedure
is bound to be complicated and confusing, as public education around the
Land Act has largely been ineffective. Second, due to the high level of poverty
in the countryside, peasants may not be able to meet the cost of a survey.
The threat of fragmentation under customary tenure noted above brings out
another reality: the rising inequality and land concentration in some parts of
the country. In development terms, therefore, there must be an institutional
framework for addressing these concerns as some elements of customary
land ownership transcend economic reasoning and prescriptions. These considerations
are largely lacking in the Act.
Mailo tenure
The Land Act 1998, restores the mailo tenure, which had been abolished by
the 1975 Land Reform Decree. Mailo tenure is prevalent in Buganda and
some parts of other kingdoms. Mailo tenure was comprised of land allotments
to the Kabaka and his chiefs following the 1900 Agreement, and they
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 14
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
were measured in square miles: hence the coinage by the Baganda, mailo.
The immediate implication of mailo tenure is that it excludes the rest of the
population from enjoying similar rights in land as those of the Kabaka and
his chiefs. The population is not only deprived of the rights of ownership but
also the rights of occupancy. The rest of the population, therefore, does not
possess security of tenure and property rights in addition to payment of busulu
and envujjo. In addition, ownership of land remains an exclusive right of the
privileged by birth or because of financial endowment (Mafeje 1973:7-11).
Clearly, the restoration of mailo puts a brake on the process of making the
land available for investment as a stimulant to economic growth. Secure individual
rights are crucial for such investment. For political reasons, as we
shall see, the land question in Buganda could not be resolved under the Act
in the interest of the majority: peasants and tenants.
The restoration of mailo tenure by the Land Act raises two major problems
with regard to bona fide occupancy and registrable interest. First, a
bona fide occupant is a person who has a landlord’s permission to utilise the
latter’s land or has occupied public land for a period of time exceeding 12
years. The Act provides tenure for a bona fide occupant who is issued with a
certificate of occupancy. As Section 9 (1) of the Act states: ‘A lawful bona
fide occupant on registered land shall enjoy security of tenure on the land’.
The registered owner is entitled to a nominal annual ground rent of Sh. 1000/
($ 0.5). Such low rent levels may not encourage owners to let land. According
to section 9 (5), of the Act, ‘If a statutory tenant fails to pay the prescribed
ground rent for a period exceeding three years, the registered owner
shall give... notice of his or her intention to terminate the tenancy’.
The clause is ambiguous, and a sense of insecurity still prevails as regards
the tenant, as he/she does not possess concrete property rights over the
land he occupies, a major precondition for investments in land. Nowhere is
the question raised more dramatically than in Kibaale (Mijumbi 2000:12-13
and Bazaara 2000:6). The 1965 referendum, which was supposed to resolve
the question of the so-called ‘lost counties’ of Buyaga and Bugangaizi, did
not address the issue of land ownership. Despite the administrative return of
these counties to Bunyoro Kingdom, the mailo land system remained intact
with Baganda absentee owners retaining their mailo certificates.
The Kibaale question surfaced during the debate leading up to the Land
Act. It was recognised that the best way out of this dilemma was to compensate
the Baganda absentee mailo landholders and allow the Banyoro tenants
to take full possession of the land. It is the Kibaale question that gave initial
consideration to a land fund with the expectation that the required compensation
to the Baganda mailo landholders would come from it. During the
debates, it was argued that the Kibaale question could not be dealt with in
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 15
27/04/2006, 17:59
15

16 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
isolation but similar situations such as that in Nyabushozi, President
Museveni’s home county, would also merit the same attention. Patronage
politics and ethnic mindsets are likely to interfere with the operation of a
land fund. Kibaale residents have expressed concern that their case has lost
priority to Nyabushozi, although they were the main cause for the establishment
of the fund! The Land Act, with it is provision of a Land Fund is an
improvement, but may not resolve the question adequately.
The second problem with the restoration of mailo tenure is the issue of
registrable interest. Registrable interest is intended to facilitate interaction
between tenants and landlords. It ensures that the landlords do not evict tenants
as they please. This remains ambiguous. To have registrable interest
necessitates a certificate of ownership. It is contradictory to issue a tenant a
certificate of ownership when an absentee or available landlord has a land
title. This creates overlapping claims for the land with negative consequences
for the definition of property rights and creates unnecessary encumbrances.
To compound the problems, the large original mailo estates were broken up
and the number of owners has, through inheritance, gift and sale, greatly
increased. This changed reality calls for a transformation of the tenure relations,
not the restoration of mailo tenure as the Act warrants.
Freehold and leasehold
Freehold and leasehold are the other systems of tenure recognised by the
Land Act. Freehold and leasehold fall under what is broadly referred to as
individual tenure. Individualisation of land is a process whereby ‘a person or
a group or family is able to register or record freehold title to the land held
customarily by the person or the group’ (Obol-Ochola 1970). This implies,
‘a reduction of community controls over land use and distribution, enhancing
the rights of the individual landholder/farmer’ (Bruce 1986). Leasehold
tenure is prevalent on public land. Both freehold and leasehold tenure have a
limited spread in the country. The current market-driven reforms aim at making
freehold and leasehold the predominant forms of land ownership, the
ambiguity around both customary and mailo tenure notwithstanding. Due to
the current excitement among foreign investors, the acquisition of leasehold
in land became an issue, which was addressed by the Land Act. Section
14(1), provides that: ‘A non-citizen may acquire a lease in land...’, and subsection
(3) adds, ‘A non-citizen shall not be granted a lease exceeding ninety
nine years’.
While a 99 year lease should be reasonable for any serious investor, the
demand by some of the investors that they acquire 999-year leases or freehold
ownership has serious implications for citizens. Ownership in perpetuity
by non-citizens, would, first, deny the citizens the opportunity to earn
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 16
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
ground rent from wealthy investors, which they could use to expand investments
on land or in other sectors of the economy. Second, the ability of noncitizens
to alienate land from citizens poses the problem of citizens becoming
landless. Without a parallel rapid industrialisation process to provide
jobs, this can only spell social disaster in both rural and urban areas.
The current market-driven reforms, as embedded in the Land Act, are
based on a number of assumptions as far as land tenure and development are
concerned. Optimism about these reforms may be a result of theoretical carelessness
in the face of empirical reality. First, it is argued that individualisation
of land tenure (leasehold and freehold ownership) increases tenure security
of the landholder, thereby reducing the economic costs of litigation
over land disputes (Barrows and Roth 1990:268). This, as a result, provides
incentives for agricultural investment, gives farmers access to credit, reduces
fragmentation of land holdings, and reduces conflict over land, hence freeing
up resources which would have been used for litigation (Platteau 1995:15).
Thus, it is also presumed that individualisation of tenure increases investment
by improving tenure security and reducing transaction costs. This increases
the likelihood that the producer will capture the returns from investment.
Second, it is assumed that individualisation will cause a land market to
emerge. Therefore, according to this view, land will be transferred to those
who are able to extract a higher value of product from the land as more
productive users bid land away from less productive users (Barrows and
Roth 1990:26).
These assumptions raise a number of issues that make the correlation
between title and long-term investment problematic. First, the use of credit
for agricultural purposes may not increase following land titling simply because
there may be no attractive investment opportunities in agriculture or
because some enabling conditions are missing. This typically occurs when
no technological package suitable for intensive agriculture is on offer. Second,
in a situation where the required infrastructure, input-delivery, output
marketing or extension services are not available, the market-based expectations
of tenure individualisation to bring about development may not be realised
(Platteau 1995:28).
Moreover, the critical importance of other-than-tenure constraints makes
it difficult to establish the relationship between freehold titling and the use
of mortgages. The existence of legally registered titles, even in conditions
where land is easily appropriable, is not a sufficient condition for the increased
use of credit for agricultural investment as Okoth-Ogendo (1982),
observed in the case of Kenya: ‘...Farmers who received land titles did not
expand credit use because of constraints on the supply of credit. In some
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 17
27/04/2006, 17:59
17

18 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
areas, credit volume was not increased but simply redistributed to larger farms
owned by more wealthy individuals’.
More importantly, land markets may not necessarily be activated as a
result of registration/titling. The mere fact that land sales take place does not
mean that they promote economic efficiency by transferring land into the
hands of dynamic cultivators. Evidence from the Kenya land reform process
indicates that ‘Those purchasing land did so for the sake of speculation,
future security for their sons and cash borrowing power... Over half of those
held against titles in cotton growing areas had been taken out by land purchasers,
but not all for agricultural purposes’ (Barrows and Roth 1990:277).
The Land Act does not spell out a ceiling on land ownership beyond that
it would be taxable. Therefore, the land policy does not seek to promote an
equitable distribution and access to land by all citizens. This opens room for
speculation in and hoarding of land. There is considerable latitude to speculate
in Uganda since there are no development conditions linked to occupation
(where one would lose the right to that land if left undeveloped for a
specified duration) (Mijumbi 2000:16). This is because the land’s durability
in the context of political instability and its ability to maintain real value in
an inflationary environment makes it a desirable asset for storing value. The
above reality goes against the neoliberal optimism that land will be transferred
to those who are able to extract a higher value product from land as
more productive users bid away from the less productive users.
Acquisition of land by government
The Land Act empowers government to compulsorily acquire land in the
public interest. Section 15 (1) states, ‘Government or local government may
acquire land for public use, public safety, public order, public morality, public
health and in interest of defense...’, and Sub-section (2) states, ‘ ...the
government or local government may acquire land in the public interest...’
This clause retains the possibility of the arbitrary acquisition of land by
the government, as was the case in the 1975 Land Reform Decree. There is
also the issue of the definition of ‘public interest’. Who determines the ‘public
interest’? It is likely that compulsory land acquisition will become more
common as the economy becomes more prosperous and land becomes more
valuable. To compound the issue, the governments (central and local) are not
bound to provide alternative land or compensation and need not consult.
Lack of consultation and the vague definition of ‘public interest’ remain major
shortcomings in the clause, as they do not guarantee private property in land
ownership and land as a human right.
The Land Act also aims at ensuring the sustainable utilisation of land. In
this regard Section 17 (1) provides that, ‘The Government or local govern-
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 18
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
ment shall hold in trust for the people and protect natural lakes, rivers,
wetlands, forest reserves, game reserves, national parks and any land reserved
for ecological and touristic purposes for the common good of citizens of Uganda’.
This clause raises two issues. First, it is not clear how much control of
natural resources the central government is willing or able to devolve to
local governments. There is no guarantee that the government will not encroach
on these resources in the ‘public interest’. Second, government has
an uphill task to ensure environmentally friendly use of land in the context of
the existing poverty and in the absence of a technological package accompanying
the land legislation. Nor are the communities that depend on these
resources provided with alternatives.
Land management
The Land Act provides for a decentralised land administration from the Ministry
of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning, to the District Land Boards.
The role of the state has changed in the area of management as the locus of
control is shifted to the Uganda Land Commission and below it, District
Land Boards and Land Committees. These institutions raise a number of
questions. First, under what conditions are these institutions being created
and maintained? Whose interests are these institutions likely to serve? These
questions are important as power relations determine property rights and
political institutions that may facilitate or hinder the technical or production
relations changes that are necessary for the emergence of a namic development
process.
Uganda Land Commission
The central interest here is the composition and powers of the Uganda Land
Commission as these have a direct bearing on the security of tenure and the
property rights in land. First, let us consider its composition. Section 20 (1)
of the Act provides that, ‘The commission shall consist of a Chairperson and
not more than four other members appointed by the President with the approval
of Parliament’.
The major concern here is the idea of appointment of the members of the
Commission by the President. In a patronage-based political economy like
Uganda, the Commission is likely to reflect political-ethnic biases with a
lack of representativeness and meritocracy as its hallmark. Institutions in
such a context create vested interests that make change problematic. Second,
the Commission has wide-ranging powers as outlined in Section 26 of
the Land Act. The commission may:
‘(a) acquire by purchase, exchange or otherwise hold land rights, leasements
or interests therein,
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 19
27/04/2006, 17:59
19

20 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
(b) erect, alter, enlarge, improve or demolish any building or other erection
on any land held by it,
(c) sell, lease, or otherwise deal with the land held by it, among others’.
The Land Act does not spell out accountability mechanisms through which
members of the Commission will exercise such wide-ranging powers. Given
such powers, this is very dangerous for some citizens. The President or individual
members of the Commission are likely, in an increasingly personalised
and vindictive political atmosphere, to use these provisions to deny security
tenure and rights to property of individuals or organisations not in
their political favour. It is a historical fact that dominant groups set up institutions
that mainly serve their narrow interests.
District Land Boards
The Land Act in Sections 29-37 provides for the establishment of District
Land Boards, and their membership, functions and powers among others.
The boards, ‘...hold and allocate land in the district which is not owned by
any person or authority’, as well as ‘facilitate the registration and transfer of
interests in land’.
The powers of the boards raise some issues of concern. Historically, district
officials have not been known for their impartiality. As it is in the case
of the Uganda Land Commission, this clause does not spell out adequate
accountability mechanisms to which members of the District Land Boards
can be held answerable. There is the likelihood of corruption and land grabbing
in the process of registration and transfer of interests in land – as has
been the case during most of Uganda’s post-independence history. The district
land boards are likely to be filled with political appointees with a disregard
for all forms of merit and capability. This can only put a brake on the
process of agrarian transformation in the country.
Land committees
Section 38 (1) of the Land Act provides for: ‘... a parish land committee
consisting of a Chairperson and three other members appointed by the District
Council on the Recommendations of the local council’. At the same
time Article 243 of the Constitution (1995) establishes land tribunals.
While the land committees and tribunals could help in resolving disputes
at the lower level, they are bound to suffer from the shortcomings of the
district land boards, that is, corruption, political vindictiveness, lack of merit
and capability. But most importantly, their formation is likely to expand the
land bureaucracy beyond manageable proportions. Third, the Land Act is
not clear on what the role of Local Councils (LCs), would be in either the
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 20
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
administration of justice or in the allocation land. The LCs have increasingly
become aligned to the ruling party, the NRM, as they have been integrated
with the Movement Council, MCs, which are organs of the ruling party. This
raises the fear of political bias in their operations on land matters. It is, therefore,
suggested that they should keep out of land issues, as their involvement
is likely to impact negatively on those in the rural areas who do not subscribe
to the NRM. They are likely to become agents of rural oppression.
Prospects for an effective land reform
Seven years after its enactment, the provisions of the Land Act have hardly
been implemented. However, its provisions are a marked improvement on
Uganda’s land policy in the past. When implemented, the Act will confront a
number of limitations both in the short-run and medium term. First, it has
limitations with regard to ensuring security of tenure and a concrete definition
of property rights, which determines the range of possible transactions
concerning land. Second, the institutions governing tenure and exchange
that determine who bears the costs associated with transferring rights, are
unlikely to be based on merit and be accountable to the people. Third, the
Act is unlikely to have a significant positive impact on the supply of commercial
bank farm credit, as most farmers may not possess land titles over
the medium term. Fourth, in the short to medium-term the impact of the Act
on the rural land markets is likely to be dismal. This is because it hardly
takes into consideration the critical importance of other-than-tenure constraints
embedded within Ugandan society.
At a general level, there remain a number of ambiguities in the land policy
as discussed above. These constraints, however, must be understood within
the historical and political developments of the country. The terrain on which
the Land Act was enacted precluded a more distributive, far-reaching reform.
The institutional and political context of the Land Act debate
The discussion of the Land Act and land reform in Uganda can best be appreciated
when it is located in its political and institutional context. The political
process through which the Land Bill and Act were produced is one of
the sources of the constraints that the Land Act confronts in bring about land
reform.
First, the debate about the land question, both during the Constituency
Assembly (CA) and after, was conducted in the context of mutual suspicion
regarding land grabbing. As Mijumbi (2000:4) notes, some mailo landholders
regarded the Bill as having a hidden agenda to dispossess the Baganda of
their land. To the Acholi and other nationalities from predominantly ‘com-
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 21
27/04/2006, 17:59
21

22 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
munal’ areas, the Bill was a case of confusing them and taking away their
‘communal’ land. Because government rushed the Bill through Parliament,
it did not undertake extensive sensitisation to allay these fears.
Second, the land question had become politically explosive after the 1996
General Elections. The landowners in Buganda, through whipping up ethnic
sentiment, had successfully forged an alliance with Baganda tenants. Third,
and most important, by the time of the Land Act 1998, the NRM had changed
its position regarding the land problem.
As Bazaara, (2000:16) observes:
After the broad-based political arrangement came to an end, the legitimacy
of the NRM in Buganda was based on the alliance between NRM
and the landlords. This is why the NRM returned the property (ebyaffe)
of the former kings. Resolving the land problem in favour of the tenants
would immediately cause antagonism between the NRM and Buganda
landlords. The other side to this was that alliance with landlords was
crucial in its effort to lock political parties out of Buganda.
Here, the NRM was taking an ethnic and sectarian position as far as Buganda
is concerned, to advance its political interests in retaining power, contrary to
its professions.
Third, the NRM leaders were no longer the paupers of 1986 when they
captured power. By 1998, they had transformed themselves into some of the
largest landowners in the country. 5 As well, over the years, state agents and
bureaucrats mainly allied to the regime, have used their proximity to state
power to acquire loans, mainly from the former state-owned bank, Uganda
Commercial Bank, (UCB), to purchase and acquire leases to large tracts of
land, which they are now eligible to transform into freehold. The NRM and
landlords’ representatives in parliament walked together hand in hand out of
common interest against the enactment of a Land Act that would provide for
remedial measures for the land that may have been fraudulently acquired in
the past. The concerns for equity, justice and social change in land relations
in Uganda were sacrificed at the altar of power politics and narrow class
interests. Given the institutional and political context of the debate and the
enactment of the land law, there was little chance of instituting a radically
distributive land reform that took into consideration issues to do with equity
and historical justice.
Conclusion
What conclusions can we draw? The Land Act, though an improvement over
the past legislation, largely ignores a number of crucial socio-political and
theoretical issues. The Act must move away from the obsession with donordriven
conceptualisation, to a more concrete understanding of the Ugandan
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 22
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
social context. This is because some of the prescriptions laid out by
neoliberalism may not be adequate to address the land question in the country.
The nature of the land question in general, and land markets in particular,
transcends economic reasoning and prescriptions. What was needed was a
more rigorous law, which when implemented would make a difference in the
lives of the people. A radically distributive land reform where peasants would
be given title deeds and not certificates of occupancy was needed. This could
have been followed by extension assistance, (management skills, technology,
seeds, marketing), to ensure that farmers become more productive. This
is because all successful land reforms have had extension assistance as a
cornerstone in their implementation. The Land Act deviates from these recent
examples of countries that have made tremendous transformation of
their economies, their different historical contexts notwithstanding.
What is needed is a radically distributive land reform, but giving proper
consideration to the peculiar characteristics of the land question in different
parts of the country. What essentially this entails is a radical revision of existing
land relations and in particular the abolition of the landlord-tenant
relations where they exist, not their restoration, as in the Land Act 1998. To
resolve the land question would entail linkage of the political, economic and
social variables operating in Uganda’s political economy. This calls for political
courage and ideological clarity regarding the intentions of land reform
measures – not opportunism and power games. In the final analysis, the need
for fundamental land reform for agrarian change to occur in Uganda is inescapable.
It is like Muhammad Ali’s fist: ‘you can run away but you cannot hide’.
Notes
1. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan, (PEAP), which is the framework for the
eradication of poverty over the next two decades, and the Plan for
Modernisation of Agriculture, (PMA) whose objective is to achieve
modernisation through improving land laws and the formulation of a
comprehensive land use policy, operate as if they were mutually exclusive
and working at cross-purposes.
2. Mailo, the land allocated to the Kabaka and his chiefs by the colonial governors,
was measured in terms of square miles, hence the coinage by the Baganda,
Mailo. Kibanja (singular) Bibanja (plural) refer to plots held by tenants on
mailo land.
3. ‘Lost Counties’ was a reference to the former Kingdom of Bunyoro comprising
of two counties of Buyaga and Bugangaizi which were give to Buganda for its
collaboration with the British against Bunyoro as war booty.
4. The clan heads led the Bataaka movement in Buganda Kingdom. The 1900
Buganda Agreement as it had not specified the precise rights peasants had
dissatisfied them. They were also against the payment of dues per annum,
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 23
27/04/2006, 17:59
23

24 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
busulu and a tithe, envujjo, in respect of each acre. This was partly resolved
through the passing the Envujjo and Busulu laws in 1928.
5. There are unconfirmed reports that President Museveni is the third largest
landowner in Uganda next only to government and the Kabaka (king of
Buganda). As a commentator put it: ‘The president has huge chunks of land in
three other parts of the country. Unconfirmed rumours have it that after the
Uganda Government, and the King of Buganda, Ronald Mutebi, Museveni is
the third largest land owner in Uganda’, Onyango-Obbo, ‘Will Museveni Go
the Rawlings Way?’, The East African, Monday, 25 December 25.
References
Barrows and Roth, 1990, Land Tenure and Investment in African Agriculture:
Theory and Evidence, Journal of Modern African Studies, 28:2.
Bazaara, N., 2000, Civil Society and the Struggle for Land Rights for Marginalised
Groups: The Contribution of the Uganda Land Alliance to the Land Act, 1998,
Paper presented to a workshop on ‘Civil Society and Governance’, held at the
Centre for Basic Research (CBR), Kampala, May 31-June 1.
Bazaara, N., 1992, Land Policy and Evolving Forms of Land Tenure in Masindi
District, Uganda, Centre for Basic Research, Working Paper, No.28.
Bazaara, N., Muhereza, F., and Ddungu, E., 1992, A Synopsis of the Dynamics of
the Land Question in Uganda, Centre for Basic Research, Kampala, mimeo.
Brenner, Robert, 1982, Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism, Past and Present,
No. 97.
Bromley, D.W., and Cornea, M.M., 1989, Management of Common Property
Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies, Discussion
Paper, No.57, The World Bank.
Bruce, J.W., 1986, Land Tenure Issues in Project Design and Strategies for
Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Land Tenure Centre,
Wisconsin, Land Tenure Centre Paper, No.128.
Ddungu, E., 1991, A Review of the MISR-Wisconsin Land Tenure Study on Land
Tenure and Agricultural Development in Uganda, Centre for Basic Research,
(CBR), Working Paper, No. 11.
Deininger, K., and Feder, G., 1999, Land Institutions and Land Markets, Internet,
mimeo.
Dowall, D.E., 1991, The Land Market Assessment: A New Tool for Urban
Management, UNDP/UNHS, (Urban Management Programme).
Hodgson, G. M., 1988, Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern
Institutional Economics, Oxford, Polity Press.
Izumi, K., 1998a, ‘Economic Liberalisation and the Land Question in Tanzania’
Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, International Development Studies, Rosklide
University, Denmark.
Izumi, K., 1998b, Process and Structure on the Land Question in Africa: Some
Theoretical Issues, Working Paper, No.8. Centre for Development and
Environment, University of Oslo.
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 24
27/04/2006, 17:59

Okuku : The Land Act (1998) and Land Tenure Reform in Uganda
Juma, Okuku A., 2000, ‘Dynamics of Land Markets in Peri-Urban Kampala,
Uganda, A preliminary research paper presented at The Nordic Africa Institute,
Uppsala, Sweden, under the Research Programme, ‘The Political and Social
Context of Structural Adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa’, 12 April, mimeo.
Juma, Okuku A., 1998, ‘Land Tenure and Development in Uganda: A Contribution
to the Debate on the Land Bill’ 1997, Department of Political Science,
Makerere University, Discussion Paper, No. 10, 30 April.
Juma, Okuku A., 1997, ‘Institutions and Industrial Policy in South Korea: What
Lessons for Uganda’, Makerere Political Science Review, Vol.1 No.1.
Juma, Okuku A., 1996, ‘Rapporteur Report on ‘The Draft Tenure and Control of
Land Bill’, Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR), Workshop, Jinja,
4-6, September.
Kiapi, A., 1975 ‘Legal Obstacles to Rural Development in Colonial Uganda’
Mawazo, Vol.4. No.3.
Lipton, M., 1991, ‘Towards a Theory of Land Reform’, mimeo.
Mafeje, A., 1973, Agrarian Revolution and the Land Question in Buganda’,
Institute of Social Studies, (ISS), Occasional Papers, The Hague.
Makubuya, K., 1981, ‘Land Law Reform and Rural Development in Uganda, in
Nsibambi’, A., and Katorobo, J., (eds.), Rural Rehabilitation and Development,
Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Rehabilitation and Development,
held at Makerere University, September 14-18.
Mamdani, M., 1976, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda, New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Mijumbi, P. B., 2000, ‘The Land Act Implementation of and Issues to Consider in
Advocacy for a Land Policy in Uganda’, 29 May, mimeo.
MISR-Wisconsin Study, 1989, ‘Land Tenure and Agricultural Development in
Uganda’, Kampala: Makerere Institute for Social Research, (MISR), January.
Mukubwa-Tumwine, 1977, ‘The Economic and Political Basis of Land Law and
Policy in Buganda, 1900-1966’, Makerere Law Journal, Vol.1.No.1.
Mukwaya, A. B., 1953, Land Tenure in Buganda: Present Day Tendencies, Nairobi
and Kampala: The Eagle Press.
Nsabasagani, X., 1997, Land Privatisation, Security of Tenure and Agricultural
Production: The Uganda Experience, Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Working
Paper Series, No.263, November.
Obol-Ochola, 1970, ‘Customary Law and Development in Uganda, LMM
Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.
Okoth-Ogendo, 1982, ‘The Perils of Land Tenure Reform’, Paper presented at a
Workshop on Land Policy and Agricultural Production in Eastern and Southern
African Countries, Gaborone, Botswana.
Platteau, J.P., 1995, Reforming Land Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: Issues of
Efficiency and Equity, UNRISD, Discussion Paper, No.60, Geneva.
Parliament of Uganda, 1997, The Land Bill, 1997, Kampala.
Republic of Uganda, 1998, The Land Act, 1998, Entebbe: Uganda Government
Printing and Publishing Corporation.
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 25
27/04/2006, 17:59
25

26 Africa Development, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, 2006
Republic of Uganda, 1995, The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, Entebbe:
Uganda Government Printing and Publishing Corporation.
Republic of Uganda, 1975, The Land Reform Decree, Entebbe: Uganda
Government Printing and Publishing Corporation.
Republic of Uganda, 1969, The Public Land Act, Entebbe: Uganda Government
Printing and Publishing Corporation.
Republic of Uganda, 1962, The Public Land Act, Entebbe: Uganda Government
Printing and Publishing Corporation.
Skarstein, R., 1990, Agriculture, Not the Leading but the Crucial Sector in
Economic Development: Some Reflections on Experience and Theory,
Department of Economics, University of Trondheim, Denmark, September,
mimeo.
Trout, Elizabeth, 1994, ‘Land Markets in Central Province, Uganda’, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
West, Henry, T., 1972, Land Policy in Buganda, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
White, G., 1993, Towards a Political Analysis of Markets, IDS Bulletin, Vol.24,
No.3, July.
1. Anthony Okuku.pmd 26
27/04/2006, 17:59